Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schwhoa
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Schwhoa
Completely non-notable. Just a made up word, used by some people, but not enough to warrant an urbandictionary.com definition, let alone an article in an encyclopedia. Also talks about creators, and is basically just nothing at all. If it should be speedied just say so.
- Delete per nom. Quentin Pierce 19:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and looks like vanity page also. Mark K. Bilbo 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Do not delete this! This word "schwhoa" could possibly become an official word. The English language needs to be expanded beyond what we have at the time. Creative adjectives are in dire need and in demand from the American population. Thankyou for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.17.6 (talk • contribs) 15:33, November 29, 2005
- Hey, schwhoa is like the mostest awesomest word ever. I tottaly dig the Shakespear thing. I love a man who knows his shakespear. What is Saudi_Lumberjacks number? I use schwhoa like almost everyday. Schwhoa, that is a lot!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.70.17.6 (talk • contribs) 15:33, November 29, 2005
- Delete per the above two posts. BD2412 T 20:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and is not the place to expand the English language. If and when this word gains more usage it might be appropriate for Wiktionary. Peyna 21:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, duh. rodii 23:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - I use this all the time. Fwhoa, whoa and schwhoa have 3 entirely different meanings. Whoa is like oh wow, Fwhoa is like oh fucking wow, and schwhoa is like oh sexy wow. Usually used when perving on someone. Sheesh. You guys never use this? Zordrac 23:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Your recent votes on several of these AfDs today makes me wonder how serious to take any of your votes, this one included. You seem to just go around voting Keep and then making up some kind of BS rationale for it. If you're going to turn into a hard-lined inclusionist like Kappa just come out and admit it and don't bother with the sarcasm. Peyna 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. Oh the whole Vfd thing was bringing me down. For the record, I really do say Schwhoa. Sometimes its nice to bring in a perspective there. I know, its not enough reason for it to stay, but I hate to see things be unanimously deleted when they were good faith. I have been trying to think which philosophy most describes me. I was looking at the different ones. I was going to say inclusionist, but not really. I've been voting 50/50, and some articles really annoy me, and I often vote delete when everyone else votes keep. I guess I tend to like to disprove common misconceptions. i.e. if everyone is voting keep, I am more likely to want to vote delete, and vice versa. Of course, that doesn't mean I will go against everyone. I was spending ages on these votes, and I got too tired. Its tiring to do research on every single damn vote. That Asgaard one should stay there, no question in my mind over that one. But this one, well, who cares. I presume you are referring to Hammertime as the other one. Similar kind of vote to this one. I wasn't lying, but you're right, I wasn't researching things like I normally do. Sometimes this is just so tiring, you know? Zordrac 05:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I've done An analysis of which Wikipedia to use on my talk page, and I can summarise it. I am Darwikinist, Delusionist, Eventualist and Inclusionist. There you go. Trying to decide which bit I am more like, but its hard to say. They all seem equally fitting. Zordrac 05:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hey now! No need for potshots at Kappa - his voting has shown a lot more balance of late, and he has always presented a serious reason for voting to keep. BD2412 T 01:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- It was more just a remark at his > 90% keep voting rate; but I withdraw that part of my comment as it was unnecessary. Peyna 01:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Your recent votes on several of these AfDs today makes me wonder how serious to take any of your votes, this one included. You seem to just go around voting Keep and then making up some kind of BS rationale for it. If you're going to turn into a hard-lined inclusionist like Kappa just come out and admit it and don't bother with the sarcasm. Peyna 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete neologisms made up by people who don't know as much about Shakespearean England as they think they do. — Haeleth Talk 01:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- The article is an undisguised attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a soapbox for promoting a protologism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It's an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 02:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism. *drew 08:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Izehar 23:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
